WP(C) No. 2271 of 2007 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. If the case of petitioners is that in spite of WP(C)2271/2007 2 the objection filed, without hearing them or considering the objections filed, the orders were passed, remedy of petitioners is to approach the Munsiff to review orders on that ground. It is more…
Judgment
SHREE VIDYADHIRAJA VIDYA SAMAJAM, EAST ALUMMOOD BUNGLOW, CHETTIKULANGARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DR.AJAY KUMAR, SHREE VIDYADHIRAJA VIDYA SAMAJAMJ DR.R.AJAY KUMAR, S/O.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, MAIDAN VILLA, HINDU MISSION ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1
BY ADV. SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR SRI.RAJ MOHAN R.PILLAI RESPONDENTS: -------------
DR.K.RAJEEV, SNRA-903, SANKAR NAGAR, NEERAMANKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DR.G.SOMASEKHARAN PILLAI, RAJA NILAYAM, TC 124/1031, VOLTAS LANE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.R.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, SREEPADMAM, PULLAYIKONAM LANE-2, SASTHAMANGALAM, SOUPARNIKA, ALUMMOOD, NEYYATTINKARA P.N.KRISHNA PILLAI, S/O.LATE NARAYANA PILLAI, SOUPARNIKA, ALUMMOOD, NEYYATTINKARA K.P.KRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.LATE PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, SREE VIHAR, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... W.P.(C)No.2271 OF 2007 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF JANUARY, 2007 JUDGMENT Petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S.1542 of 2006 on the file of Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioners are challenging Exts.P8 and P9 orders passed by learned Munsiff in I.A.Nos.9938 of 2006 and 9955 of 2006 in O.S.1558 of 2006. As per the orders, petitioners therein were impleaded as defendants 4 and 5, on their application, stating that no objections were filed to their applications. The case of the petitioners is that they had filed objections before the court and the objections were received in the office but were not considered and therefore Exts.P8 and P9 orders as if no objection was filed, are to be set aside.
2. On hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, I do not find any infirmity in Exts.P8 and P9 orders warranting interference in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
Operative part
If the case of petitioners is that in spite of WP(C)2271/2007 2 the objection filed, without hearing them or considering the objections filed, the orders were passed, remedy of petitioners is to approach the Munsiff to review orders on that ground. It is more so when petitioners have no case in the petition that when the petitioners were heard, it was represented that objections were filed in office or that they prayed time for hearing. In such circumstances, the order cannot be interfered on that ground. Even if defendants 4 and 5 are impleaded as has been done by the Munsiff under Exts.P8 and P9 orders, petitioners are entitled to raise all contentions including their right. Writ petition is dismissed. lgk/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 19 Jan 2007. The bench was M SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.